Quick pt: It's not 'symbolic' if you burn enough infrastructure.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 17 Dec 2017, at 13:27, Vincent Van Uffelen <novazem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/12/2017 10:07, e...@x80.org wrote:
>> Morlock Elloi <morlockel...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Echoing recent digital critics such as Douglas Rushkoff or even myself,
>>>> they ask themselves what’s revolutionary or prophetic in an industry
>>>> that relies on old-school capitalism, monopolies, micro-work, state
>>>> regulations and money as a cardinal value. And as they reject the hacker
>>>> myth, they end up calling a revered
>>> "Hacker spaces" and similar are simply recruitment centers for the new
>>> cognitive class that will facilitate the machine-mediated control of
>>> the rest. People instinctively understand this, despite the deluge of
>>> propaganda to the contrary.
>>>
>>> Computing machines are all about control. While there is a number of
>>> positive side effects for those on the receiving side, ultimately it's
>>> about control of the many by the few. Tending to computing machines
>>> ('programming') has immediate gratification: you see many hapless
>>> 'users' being controlled by your 'interface', following instructions
>>> you embedded once into the machine, millions and millions of
>>> times. You don't have to be there, they still obey you and your 'flow
>>> design'. You created f*cking 15 ... 10 commandments! (nod to
>>> Mr. Brooks.) You are god. This is the only reason why everyone and
>>> their mother wants to 'learn' computing 'science'.
>> I guess ignoring both the history and ample social contributions of the
>> hacker and digital activism movements turns out to be very convenient to
>> support that kind of victimised point of view. Oh, look! The machines
>> made us slaves!
>>
>> You are correct about what the new cognitive class means for those not
>> it in. Those who belong, they will be the rulers of tomorrow, and those
>> who are left out, they will be the ones easy to control.
>>
>> The ruling class acts on a rational basis here, and a great war against
>> knowledge and education is currently underway, fully supported by the
>> capitalist elites. For them, restricting access to the cognitive class
>> is a key point as low education levels are a critical factor for the
>> survival of their status.
>>
>> For better or worse it seems to me that the only way to escape control
>> from computers is not rejection, but in-depth education about them.
>>
>> E.
> I agree, the world is as fucked as we allow it to (seem to) be, and, in my
> eyes it is actually important to keep on revealing the opportunities that are
> hiding in the gray scales.
>
> However, while some "hacker spaces" or "maker spaces" are founded and run by
> members of the critical hacker/digital activist cultures the vast majority
> are often run by way less politically engaged teams of technology enthusiasts
> or even worse by larger institutions. Those spaces then primarily cultivate
> the deep engagement with the numbing joys of learning and teaching of the
> skillful mastery of technology and often fall totally flat on becoming a
> fertile ground for critical capacity building.
>
> The question for me is though if burning the institution is actually the way
> to challenge this? Isn't pure critique in damning words or symbolic acts (and
> what else is the act of burning infrastructure) a bit too easy and actually
> quite ineffective? Hacker spaces are means of amplifying certain individual
> and societal habits, to change these it needs to make the institutions learn
> new tricks. Many of these spaces are actually based on some DIY, DITO,
> co-created, and co-organised visions and quite often run by well meaning
> people that are open for active (as in willing and capable to spend the
> needed time and energy to demonstrate the viability, validity, and utility of
> change) critique. I believe that those spaces can be nudged to change, that
> it is worth to try to claim influence over these valuable infrastructures,
> and the potential actualized by trying to meddle with the organisational
> structures of these places is effort way better spent than energetically,
> conceptually, relationally, and culturally cheap one-off (ok, two-off so far)
> interventions.
>
> \\vincent
>
>
>
>
>
>
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
